The Royal Family #9

[Great_Kate]

@Anyways888 I think the MET took it because they had to. But I am actually happy they didn’t spoil more resources on this. Not because Andrew shouldn’t be investigated, but because it would be fruitless. Virginia has said everything about it several times in several records. No new witnesses have come forward. Nothing new has turned up to last time really regarding PA. My cynical side thinks he or his advisors cleaned the house a bit after last time and there is nothing to be found to prove anything.
And yes, the rich and powerful get away with much more, but from time to time one of them gets sacrificed to show they are not treated differently to appease the public. I think that’s exactly what’s happening to PA and he is a thankful case and it’s completely deserved. MET would jump on him to prove they are indeed protecting the vulnerable and trustworthy if there was any chance for them to come out looking good.
So yes, they are just ticking off a box. But I don’t think it’s to protect PA but rather not be the ones that have to tell the public that there is really nothing new to be found.

 

[NonDairyQueen]

another note. Cressida did a tit job, but it’s always fascinating that if a man does it the outrage is always less. She didn’t funk up the police, but is the last one in a long line of people ignoring the problems. Just like Theresa didn’t cause Brexit. But still, people talked about her in a way they never did with Cameron and even re-elected Boris. Not even touching the cognitive dissonance in other countries in Europe and over th

Totally agree with you. It's always the women left holding the tit sandwich at the end, when the music has been playing for years ( see also Jodie Whittakers tenure on Doctor Who)

also think that other wealthy people (not sure if just men) had sex with the Epstein girls. Why were they on his island and on the Lolita plane? They have this book with all the names.

But Andrew is the only one they shine a light on. V strange in my view.

I thought it was because most of the others were covered by the previous court cases. I do also think, though, that Andrew is low hanging fruit. He is famous but not powerful his family have money but probably not enough power worldwide to get her killed.

 

[Anyways888]

@Anyways888 I think the MET took it because they had to. But I am actually happy they didn’t spoil more resources on this. Not because Andrew shouldn’t be investigated, but because it would be fruitless. Virginia has said everything about it several times in several records. No new witnesses have come forward. Nothing new has turned up to last time really regarding PA. My cynical side thinks he or his advisors cleaned the house a bit after last time and there is nothing to be found to prove anything.
And yes, the rich and powerful get away with much more, but from time to time one of them gets sacrificed to show they are not treated differently to appease the public. I think that’s exactly what’s happening to PA and he is a thankful case and it’s completely deserved. MET would jump on him to prove they are indeed protecting the vulnerable and trustworthy if there was any chance for them to come out looking good.
So yes, they are just ticking off a box. But I don’t think it’s to protect PA but rather not be the ones that have to tell the public that there is really nothing new to be found.

I disagree. We don't know what resources they wasted. If the Telegraph is to be believe they certainly couldn't even be bothered to do the basics and pick up the phone to speak to Virgina.

I also don't believe men like Andrew only have one victim. If there are anymore victims in the UK they are sure not to ever come forward after this "investigation".

 

[Great_Kate]

I disagree. We don't know what resources they wasted. If the Telegraph is to be believe they certainly couldn't even be bothered to do the basics and pick up the phone to speak to Virgina.

I also don't believe men like Andrew only have one victim. If there are anymore victims in the UK they are sure not to ever come forward after this "investigation".

I mean, I read the situation differently, but obviously your interpretation could be much closer to the reality than mine. Let’s agree to disagree.

 

[NonDairyQueen]

MET would jump on him to prove they are indeed protecting the vulnerable and trustworthy if there was any chance for them to come out looking good.

I don't think they would. The establishment and the Royals soft power is too strong. They can't even be bothered to take action against people who expose themselves to children or rape women. They conveniently lost the logs of Andrew's whereabouts at the time and according to the PP haven't even interviewed the alleged victim.

also don't believe men like Andrew only have one victim. If there are anymore victims in the UK they are sure not to ever come forward after this "investigation".

There's a woman in France too

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I think that IF Andrew is a scapegoat, then he is the one that has the least impact.

What powers does he have? Privileges (and money?), yes, but no real powers in the political or economical space.

 

[WestSideIsDaBest]

My feeling is
I don't think Andrew knew they were trafficked at worst, coerced at best, girls. I think he went to these parties and the girls were instructed to be "friendly" to him. He's got a massive ego and thinks he's bleeping irresistible and gods gift so doesn't question it.

 

[Great_Kate]

My feeling is
I don't think Andrew knew they were trafficked at worst, coerced at best, girls. I think he went to these parties and the girls were instructed to be "friendly" to him. He's got a massive ego and thinks he's bleeping irresistible and gods gift so doesn't question it.

I am very conflicted about this. At best he was aware that something might have been a bit off, but made sure not to look too closely or ask questions. So he maybe didn’t know but I think he had a hunch he choose to ignore. At worst he was fully aware and just didn’t give a ****.
I lean into the first category just because it appears he thinks so very highly of himself that he would have made sure his own self perception won’t be tarnished. That’s why he can act all innocent but also it’s very clear he realised that stuff was bad and desperately tries to deflect. For the public’s perception and his own. If he was completely fine with it I think he would have been a better liar and the interview would have looked different. But yeah….. he could also be fully complicit.
I don’t believe he was completely oblivious to what was going on around him.

 

[Blurp]

My suspicion is that the logs from his personal protection officers that would show where he was at the relevant times have been conveniently "lost" because they would prove that he wasn't where he said he was but where he said that he wasn't.

 

[NonDairyQueen]

I am very conflicted about this. At best he was aware that something might have been a bit off, but made sure not to look too closely or ask questions. So he maybe didn’t know but I think he had a hunch he choose to ignore. At worst he was fully aware and just didn’t give a ****.
I lean into the first category just because it appears he thinks so very highly of himself that he would have made sure his own self perception won’t be tarnished. That’s why he can act all innocent but also it’s very clear he realised that stuff was bad and desperately tries to deflect. For the public’s perception and his own. If he was completely fine with it I think he would have been a better liar and the interview would have looked different. But yeah….. he could also be fully complicit.
I don’t believe he was completely oblivious to what was going on around him.

I agree. I think if he had bothered to do any due diligence at all or gave a duck about anyone else he would have seen something dodgy. He either chose not to see or simply didn't care about people he felt were beneath him and therefore not worthy of his time or concern, unless they were servicing him at the time, whether it was handing out the canapés or servicing him in other ways. He couldn't even be bothered to show concern for them when he was being interviewed about it on TV. It never even occurred to him!

 

[WestSideIsDaBest]

I am very conflicted about this. At best he was aware that something might have been a bit off, but made sure not to look too closely or ask questions. So he maybe didn’t know but I think he had a hunch he choose to ignore. At worst he was fully aware and just didn’t give a ****.
I lean into the first category just because it appears he thinks so very highly of himself that he would have made sure his own self perception won’t be tarnished. That’s why he can act all innocent but also it’s very clear he realised that stuff was bad and desperately tries to deflect. For the public’s perception and his own. If he was completely fine with it I think he would have been a better liar and the interview would have looked different. But yeah….. he could also be fully complicit.
I don’t believe he was completely oblivious to what was going on around him.

I too agree that assuming he didn’t “know” he should have asked more questions as to why, where and how these girls were there.
But he clearly didn’t care and just bumbled along thinking he was gods gift.

Which also raises the question of police protection officers in that capacity. Not to babysit Prince Andrew. Their take on the situations would be interesting.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I too agree that assuming he didn’t “know” he should have asked more questions as to why, where and how these girls were there.
But he clearly didn’t care and just bumbled along thinking he was gods gift.

Which also raises the question of police protection officers in that capacity. Not to babysit Prince Andrew. Their take on the situations would be interesting.

What do you think police officers have to say about that?

Epstein und Maxwell are responsible.
Andrew was a consumer, either a knowing participant or naive and arrogant.

But it is similar to us consumers buying cheap fashion (despite being aware of the existence of sweat shops), cheap meat (knowing that animals are not being treated well), etc etc

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

What do you think police officers have to say about that?

Epstein und Maxwell are responsible.
Andrew was a consumer, either a knowing participant or naive and arrogant.

But it is similar to us consumers buying cheap fashion (despite being aware of the existence of sweat shops), cheap meat (knowing that animals are not being treated well), etc etc

I'm not quite sure that having sex with an allegedly trafficked young girl/woman is quite on the same level as cheap fashion or cheap meat to be honest. Some people don't have choices about shopping in cheap places or buying cheap food, while Andrew had every possible choice available to him - and perhaps that will be his downfall.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I'm not quite sure that having sex with an allegedly trafficked young girl/woman is quite on the same level as cheap fashion or cheap meat to be honest. Some people don't have choices about shopping in cheap places or buying cheap food, while Andrew had every possible choice available to him - and perhaps that will be his downfall.

It is of course not the same!

But the attitude behind it is similar.

Aside from the consumers that need to rely on cheap prices, there are many, many more that could afford more ethical choices but prefer to save money.

You could also switch it around and say: there are "green/ethical investment opportunities" but more money is to be made by investing it more morally questionable options and lots of (wealthy) people decide to do that - despite having other options available to them.

It is an attitude of "I want the best for me / I deserve it / I am entitled / I put myself first" that I see in Andrew but also in other people in a different context (eg shopping or investing).

 

[WestSideIsDaBest]

What do you think police officers have to say about that?

Epstein und Maxwell are responsible.
Andrew was a consumer, either a knowing participant or naive and arrogant.

But it is similar to us consumers buying cheap fashion (despite being aware of the existence of sweat shops), cheap meat (knowing that animals are not being treated well), etc etc

It’s not similar at all. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying the protection officers are to blame. I don’t know how far their role extends to accompanying Andrew to things, potentially they’ve stood by as people are (at best) taken advantage at worst groomed and raped.
it’s not the same as Prince Harry doing drugs or drinking too much, they are to himself. This is a potential crime against someone else.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

It’s not similar at all. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying the protection officers are to blame. I don’t know how far their role extends to accompanying Andrew to things, potentially they’ve stood by as people are (at best) taken advantage at worst groomed and raped.
it’s not the same as Prince Harry doing drugs or drinking too much, they are to himself. This is a potential crime against someone else.

I don't think it is a crime. Met would have at least investigated if it would be, and they didn't do anything.

The claim Andrew has to answer to is a civil claim, not a criminal claim.

The protection officers most likely didn't watch Andrew having sex and I don't think they would be required to report anything.

Look at the other people that attended Epstein's parties - who else has been reported or who else has a claim to answer. Nobody.
There were so many other influential and rich people.

 

[RoseintheSunshine]

So maybe this is not the thread and maybe I’m about to go down a rabbit hole… but regardless of what Andrew is and what his knowledge may or may not be, Epstein and Maxwell mixed with lots of very wealthy and influential people, so why are they not being targeted? Surely there were others she was trafficked too ??

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

So maybe this is not the thread and maybe I’m about to go down a rabbit hole… but regardless of what Andrew is and what his knowledge may or may not be, Epstein and Maxwell mixed with lots of very wealthy and influential people, so why are they not being targeted? Surely there were others she was trafficked too ??

I am wondering the same.

It might be that PA is an easy target - there is a photo and he is just a Royal. He doesn't have the same connections and wealth as powerful business men and politicians.
Maybe there was the perception that Royals pay lots and fast if their reputation is threatened.
Or she doesn't know who the other people were?

It is all very puzzling.

 

[Great_Kate]

I am wondering the same.

It might be that PA is an easy target - there is a photo and he is just a Royal. He doesn't have the same connections and wealth as powerful business men and politicians.
Maybe there was the perception that Royals pay lots and fast if their reputation is threatened.
Or she doesn't know who the other people were?

It is all very puzzling.

I think it’s this and the fact that we haven’t heard from those women a lot in general. Virginia is almost the only one publicly talking about it. And a nameless/faceless person in France? I think Virginia and her lawyers have identified PA as her best shot and that’s why we hear so much about him. But it’s quite surprising no one else came forward after Epstein’s empire crushed. I was sure we would hear from many women about their stories and the people involved.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I think it’s this and the fact that we haven’t heard from those women a lot in general. Virginia is almost the only one publicly talking about it. And a nameless/faceless person in France? I think Virginia and her lawyers have identified PA as her best shot and that’s why we hear so much about him. But it’s quite surprising no one else came forward after Epstein’s empire crushed. I was sure we would hear from many women about their stories and the people involved.

Yes, it is all very strange.

I thought that maybe the women were too embarrassed? But it would be easier to come forward as Virginia has already spoken out.